Peter Dale Scott withdraws endorsement of CIT

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

You are correct in joining Mr. Gage and rescinding your endorsement. of CIT.

There is the process we go thru to thoroughly vet ideas and research methods. Eventually baseless theories and biased researchers must be rejected if the TM is to maintain high standards of credibility.

If CIT's presentation is all one sees, the witness testimony seems compelling; how could so many people be wrong about which side of the Citgo the plane was on? But NSA omits the fact that the witnesses who said this also reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. NSA also omits the witness testimony that supports the S path, incl. elements of the statements of witnesses they used, plus other witnesses they interviewed, besides ones they didn't, such as those that went on the record around the time of the attack, some of which Jeff Hill interviewed in the last year or so.

CIT's habit of making excuses for inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses they use, while seizing on anything in order to discredit witnesses whose testimony contradicts their N path/flyover conclusion is also problematic. Even worse is their habit of accusing witnesses and critics of being disinfo agents, and even complicit in the attack, such cab driver Lloyd England, who Aldo and Craig referred to as the devil and a demon.

It's not easy for people in leadership positions to retract a statement, so I just want to acknowledge these actions by Peter and Richard -- they really do matter. We are all human and not superhuman! Good to know . . and thank you.